april of this year marks the 100th anniversary into the word war 1. up next, michael kazin talks

about the coalition that nearly succeeded keeping america out of the great war. part of the symposium hosted by the world war i museum memorial in kansas city, mysterious. >> for our last speaker this evening here at the national world war i museum memorial, it is my pleasure to introduce michael kazin. now, i'm actually going to -- i'm glad you brought this. i left this unfortunately in my early rush home. want to introduce a book i think you all will want to purchase in january when it will be coming out, "war against war" the opportunity for pace. i have been able to enjoy but not finished it yet. this is a fantastic new publication. i will read a couple of bits

from some of our previous speakers who have been at this very podium. at a time people tell veterans thank you for your service, michael kaz zim reminds us of largely forgotten people who deserve our thanks far more, those who i tried to keep us out of the most terrible war america had yet to seen. the veterans for the participation in the first world war are a model for care and grace. any who cares about this country's role in the war should read this book, john milton cooper. so take that and maybe put that onto your new year's resolution list of books to be reading. in just a moment, we'll be jo joined by dr. michael kazin, a professor in georgetown university's department of history where he is an expert in u.s. politics and social movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. prior to his position at

georgetown, kaz zim served as assistant professor at the american university and in 1976 in american studies in the netherlands. he lectured in japan, italy, france, great britain and russia as well as throughout the u.s. his most recent book, 2011 by the new republic, one of this is most recent publications, "newsweek," daily beast and progressi progressives, american dreamers have a left changed nation, the editor of descent. look for his book war against war, the american fight for peace coming out soon. he is the recipient of many academic hop nors including reach narrative from the scity' graduating center and national endowment of fellowship in 2009 and guggenheim fellowship and a

lecture how the united states was nearly stopped from going to war. please welcome dr. michael kaz zim. [ applause ] >> thank you for that great introduction. in fact, also and the staff thank you for organizing this tremendous symposium, thank you, really. it's an honor to follow speakers who know so much. i have never been here before while i was doing research on the book, it's a stupendous place. most of you have probably been here before, i haven't. the smith sewnium museum --soni

history, it's hard to locate. it's in a case in between the spanish american war and world war ii. almost as if they said, yeah, we have to have something on world war i. they have the flag poster and the helmet and i think a machine gun. it's really kind of an afterthought. one time i was there, i heard a child, a boy maybe 10 years old, say to his mother, there were two world wars, didn't know that. you could be -- easy if you see that exhibit to miss this one. >> i realize i am the only thing

standing between you and the cocktail hour. i will try to keep you intere interested by saying some provocative things. we heard interesting things about the war yesterday and today. i will talk about the anti-war. i'm not a historian for world war i and if i were, i would have been here before. i'm an historian for politics. as lora mentioned. my first cousin twice removed is barbara tuckman. every summer until i was 15 years old, my grandmother was allowed by barbara to use a house on barbara's rather large estate in connecticut. when ever i tried to talk to barbara, she was always working on another book. "the guns of august" is one of the first serious history books i ever read and influenced me to

become a historian, i think, after a while. at least i have that going for me. well, i want to begin this talk by showing you photos of four leaders of the largest and most sophisticated opposition to any war in u.s. history until the vietnam war. none of these people is known to most americans. even -- this is the only figure i think, who's known to most historians except those who focus precisely on this period. each of these figures was a l d leader of a major segment of this anti-war movement, this coalition a better way to put it, because it involved people in congress and outside congress, one of the reasons it was as powerful and influential as it was. as most of you probably know,

follette, a senator, republican, intellectual motivation leader of progressive republicans in this congress, especially from the midwest. one of his disciples so to speak was the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, william stone, who is from missouri. and he and stone were the first to vote against the world war in april of 1973. the other three figure, if you know them, more power to you. most people, i think, do not. crystal eastman. she was a feminist, pacifist, socialist, very active in the surf garage movement, before world war i began, active in new york city convincing auto companies to let women sell cars to women something wasn't done before 1913.

she was important for that as well. crystal eastman was oresponsibl for the woman's peace party in new york city headquartered in chicago and jane addams, the great writer and passivist and social worker. the largest detachment was crystal eastman and the leader of that. and there was a national organization involved in making connections with congress, both democrats and republicans in congress who opposed preparing for the war, opposed building up the army and the navy in case war would come and then opposed both going to war and con

descripti scription. >> morris hillquit, from latvia was the only time socialism seemed to be going somewhere in america. it had 100,000 newspapers all over the country, able to win up to 16% of the vote in states like oklahoma and nevada. hi hillquit spoke many languages in touch with socialists who supported the war in europe and opposed the war. he wrote every important statement from 1914-1917 and the statements the socialist party put out, unlike most socialists in europe decided to oppose going to war.

he ran for mayor in new york and for a while the wilson administration thought he would win. he did not win, came in a close third but won almost 35% of the vote, to give you some sense how unpopular the war was in certain parts of the country, once the u w -- once the u.s. was in it. finally, represent claude dit kitchin majority leader of the house and chairman of the ways and means committee. he had his hands on all the revenue creating measures before the war and during the war, to decide whether the military -- how to raise the money for the war or try to stop raising money for the war, if that's what you

want to do. now, at the start, one misconception about those who oppose the war i want to point out right away. that is americans who oppose the aware are isolationists, wanted nothing to do with the rest of the world, want to stay safe behind the ocean borders the united states has. they might care what happened in mexico and canada. but europe was a long ways away and the united states never fought a war in europe and wanted to stay away. this is supposedly what motivated people in the anti-war movement. it was one thing that motivated some americans to stay out of the war, undeniable. it did not motivate these four or other leaders and prominent leaders in the anti-war movement i could mention.

kitchen a little less so but these others were deeply involved with passivists, feminists and socialists in europe. they agreed with those who opposed the war in europe the only way to finally end war was to build a just order, the kind of thing wilson often talked about. most of them wanted to go far farther than wilson. they wanted to build a socialized democracy and pea peaceful national statesman s p ships and wanted to talk about the league of nations before wilson himself league of nations. it is distinguished by a much more left wing and economic social policy. there's another misconception about the war, most americans want to stay out of it.

it was hard to get into the war until the determine mans instructed you about warfare in november, 1917. not so many people wanted to get in the world. there were other powerful and well financed groups, would want to change and get the u.s. to declare war. you heard of this guy, former president roosevelt continued to be one of the most popular americans, a great progressive as well as fair to say, war lover. he's sitting with various figures, some in uniform, some not. at a rally for the national security league in 1915, a major

lobby for the army and military training supporting the movement that tried to get young men, especially upper class young men to do military training. tried to pass laws, public schools to have young men or boys drill during school hours. rtc was an idea that came out of this preparedness movement as well? they wanted to build up u.s. forces to have an army large enough to take on the japanese, said to be a threat invading california and take on the germans. they want a navy second to none as well. one of the misconceptions about the war is totally true. wen the war began, not many

americans wanted to get into it. woodrow wilson spoke to a large majority of americans it's pretty clear. you must be impartial in thought and action and not a preference of one party to struggle before another. neutral in thought as well as deed. otherwise, he thought the u.s. could not be a mediator. he wanted -- at some point, throughout the 2 1/2 years in august up until the time the u.s. declares the wore himself. he wanted to be the honest broker between the central powers. he had, as you know, great ambitions to be a great statesman and someone who

believed very much in the promise of american democracy and wanted to spread that around the world and wanted to do that pea peacefully. also, he was quite aware there was a tremendous amount of ethnic tensions boiling up once the war began. the german american alliance supported by the brewing interest in america, holding many demonstrations in newark and chicago and calling for the u.s. to stay out, supporting the germ germans. and there were polls arguing they should have independent. the wore would mean nothing if that couldn't happen. russian jews who supported the

germ germans, the greatest anti-semite. on the other hand, there were russian christians who wanted to support their own land fighting against the germans. this is also the motivation of wilson to make comments like this. in fact, he convinced the mayor of new york, a guy names john mitchell, to halt all demonstrations with either side in august of 2014. mitchell, a democrat, member of wilson's party ready to do that. in the interest of national security to do this. however, through the diplomatic policies he chose to adopt i think he believed his own rhetoric. we can talk about this. i think wilson's policies made u.s. intravention on the other side of the allies probable if

not inevible. he did nothing to compel american business to stay neutral, either in thought or deed. jpmorgan and company became the agent taking sales commission on everything the british brought and keeping the people going in part. all of that helped lift them. it was cut in half by 1915. germany's warfare and the other side, britain's naval lock cade had a fatefulkens. given the supreme court on the

north atlantic germany not ir rationally thought submarine warfare was the only militant response. they would argue it may have been a matter of time and both attacked the u.s. into declaring war. wilson's decision was not an irrational one. the north atlantic was a lifeline to u.s. commerce to destroy neutral ships and e congressman mers was a -- and e-commerce was a violation of global law. one of the quips made at the time about the british blockade versus the warfare was bo tanya rules the waves and waves the

rules. [ laughter ] >> woodrow wilson was not himself neutral in thought. he was a life-long agrifall. his mother was born in lake brooklyn and others. less than a year after this europeans went to war, he told lieutenant house, a victory will change the course of the nation and make us a militaristic speech. >> wilson gives this naively eloquent peace calling on both sides to make a pace for victory. as much as he wished the u.s. could remain neutral and be an

honest broker between the different side, wilson, i think, could not really choose not to care who won the war. the germans won the war, it would be a disaster from his point of view. millions of americans did view with alarm the mounting war and the mounting bloodshed with alarm. they opposed the preparedness crusade and decision to move towards going to war and the decision to go to war. a concerned minority organized the largest peace movement in history. it was a very broad movement. it's hard to think of any particular segment of the american population except for perhaps people from british backgrounds especially in the northeast who didn't have some

representative in this anti-ward coalition at different times. there was no region particularly strong pro war or anti-war. >> it was begun by women, in fact a feminist cause at the beginning. august 29th, 1914. a group of pretty wealthy white protestant advocates of women's rights for the arbitration took the lead in the movement. they held a march down fifth avenue in manhattan. about 1500 women, many dressed in black to symbolize mourning. no national flags were allowed to be thrown. they wanted to show international conscious ness and solidarity of women. >> 10 times "the new yorker"s

lined both sides. the leader of it was a woman named fannie garrison vvelard. she was a daughter of william garris garrison. she said i was more than surprised at the referential attitude of the spectators. it was only a feeble effort really. we have simply cast a pebble into the water. i hope the over widening circles will help americans realize what a crime it is to send thousands of hubses and men to a useless slaughter. this is the line they continued to take throughout the course of the world. the circles did widen and wid widened rather quickly.

european feminists from belligerent nations. emily swinger from lake lawrence. >> and it inspired women in these cities to establish peace committ committees. pethic-lawrence is her name. her maiden name was pethic-lawrence. then, it s was a radical thing o do. in january, women's peace committees came together in the largest gathering of women in a convention in american history. to that day. they formed the women's peace party, 3,000 next to the white house.

nearly every prominent leader, from suffrage leaders to settlement workers like gain adams, and many others. a couple month later there was a conference of women at the hague, international peace conference which jane addams was the chair of. this is a group of american k l delegates going over on a dutch ship. actually, they were stopped by the highway and british trips and searched and about to be turned bark. the u.s. ambassador of great britain was calmed but he said, i'm sorry, i'm not going to help you. it took him several days to get to the conference. i have to stop and tell you some

antido antidotes. jane addams, people interested in helping terrible work, he helping the poor. a few gel gan women came to the -- belgian women came to the conference and a few german women came, too, she made besit on the side. the countries were not going to be at war with one another. the belgian woman actually denounced the german woman so it didn't quite work. symbolically, it looked good. the feminist critique of the war got into popular culture. the most popular piece of sheet movement in mistake in 1815

written by a canadian. "i didn't raise my boy to be a soldier." you can cue up the youtube of fig fighting. that's how you found out what the popular song was, how many copies of sheet music. 800,000 was played at holes around the country, bars, anyway there was piano, and the rest of us. it talks about arbitration and it's up to mothers to take the lead to stop their boys from going to war. at the same time a group of progressives and radicals are meeting here in new york city to form against american militarism, such as william wald

and the house that jane addams set up in chicago in the 1880s and '90s. paul kellogg had the survey, a meeting ground for social ref m reformers of various times, labor reformers, trying to pass a law outlawing child laborists, a large spectrum of reformers at this time. a it also included philanthropists like pitcho and the federal secretary of roosevelt and the editor of the north carolina

post, rabbi steven wise of t-- and stanford university. this was that glittering group of what some today might call bleeding heart liberals. their heart was bleeding for those dying in the united states. they wanted the u.s. sta stay out of it, if at all possible. it wasn't just upper middle class reformers part of this movement. most union members, union leaders, i should say, oppose preparedness and going to war as well. 1914, 1915, 1916 as well. the leadi ining organization of labor and leading organization in america, some of the major

unions workers, clothing workers you union, full of germans and polls and irish americans and german americans and others were proposed -- opposed of the war not just because they wanted to avoid ethnic tensions, that was part of it. there was no reason to believe american workers wanted to go overseas to fight other workers. class irms is a middle class creed. as the movement blossomed, it attracted powerful allies in across one of the major people there

was william jennings. he was a fundamentalist christians, famous or infamous by being a provide in the scope trial just before 1925. before that he was a pro-toe new dealer in many ways, social policy and a life-long passi passivist. he was secretary of state in 1913-n 1913-1915. continue topped press wilson at every point trying to get him as relaxed as in words. he was reluctant to allow the u.s. kwoft to give across to the british even though he new american workers would be very

happy to go back to work in fact musicians and other war material. he was the most popular figure in his own party except for the president himself. as much of you know, he resigned from secretary of state because he saw wilson's second note to the germans was much too tough against the germans and would bring the united states into the war. he knew hartley anybody wanted to go to war. i must mention, there were often meetings t-shirt and other ci cities. immigrants and mass meetings. this is a week after the authorities, you resume unreconvicted warfare.

war against bar intelligence war -- war intelligenagainst awt war. there were many -- a large support network, if you will, for the activists in the anti-war. their tactics were diverse and imaginative. there were possessietitions hik thought they were, they had protest rallies at michigadison square valley and during the war. one of their most daring perhaps efforts, tactical efforts happened after february second,

1917, when many people assumed the u.s. would get into the war by this point, they said, we don't think most americans want to get in the war, let's hold a referendum. those who like the war like roosevelt and many people in the republican party and so dem gratz as well. and they -- given anti-war congress men and senators held referenda in their own districts and states not surprisine inin w showed a huge majority for not getting into the war. this is not constitutional. it says the congress has the power of nuclear war or these days, the president usually has the power unless congress stops him. it was interesting, they had

confidence when the referendum was held, binding, legally bi binding, that would have held off the u.s. declaring war. sa this was in february. you look at the museum exhibit and walkway february through march, automated headlines s saying, u.s. going to wore, in february, before there's a debate in congress about it. this was in some ways, a last ditch attempt. in 1961, seemed wilson was still op the side of the anti-war, there was something that surprised many people, they supported wilson almost to a manned an woman. that included the socialist par parties.

eugene had run four times for president. 1900 to 19 as well. he didn't run. the socialist had a candidate, much less known, got many fewer votes. this is my 1916 antedote for the lecture perhaps. i'll have a few others as i go on. >> he would have won the election in california in 1964 even though only the popular la vote. there were 266 votes separatine ing wilson from hughes in california. if he had gotten the votes, he would have. >> and would if he had gotten elected, would they support him?

>> the way they did for wilson, from his own parties. some kind of factuals are worth asking. 1900 votes like what would have happened if ralph nader had not campaigned in florida in-and al gore had won in florida. i think it's worth asking also some of historians. among the problem in americans who supported this peace coalition was this guy. henry ford, the most popular industrial oust, not just in america but the world because he made the automobile affordable to the mass, the model t. henry ford charters his own ocean liner in 1915, transports

himself and other activists. i see i'm going on far too long so i will speed up a little bit. what motivated those who opposed preparedness and going to war? this is more complicated than i have time to go into the complications of but interesting one. two types of arguments, i think, they made. the first one is quite radical. they wanted a peaceful war. they were passivists, didn't mean they opposed all. most people think passive vists now. they were opposed to going to war, pretty much anywar. they thought preparing for war would make world war i more

likely, look at the russians and french, they built up their millimeters because they were affray what would happen? they had a terrible war. preparing for war makes war more likely and a peacef fuful war l likely. >> the second article was -- it has a perhaps more conservative meaning to it in some ways, the idea that uncle sam, as america and as the symbol of u.s. dwoft go as well of the -- of the u.s. government and american state will just get bigger and bigger. if the u.s. goes to war we will be pressurized. it is used all the time. do you want a society income taxes have to be increased tremendously to pay for the war? do you want a society people are

pet in jail which is what does happen if theist does go to war. many people argue opposing the war was a conservative cause, william stone. chaired the final committee and mentioned the decision this way, i won't vote for this war because if we get into it, we will never again have the same old foreign republic. the go. will get too big. i'm a never stonian, aligned with racist democrats like claude ditch vens and republicans like robin. an nar kvists like goldman, quite a coalition. well, obviously they're lost. if we had public opinion polls back then, who knows what would

have happened. if it's like this year, we would have 50 public opinion polls and we disagree with one another and difficult to know. people like cooper and the great historian biographer of woodrow wilson, arthur link arg gaw the two sides are pretty evenly mat matched. by march and april, 1917. the big newspapers you see across the way, almost all were in fair of going to war. it's not clear that the people were, at least a large number of the people. if the u.s. does go to war, which it does, william stone said, predicted, feared would happen, in many ways does happen. he had a hunchback, died of the spanish flu in 1918, made the famous statement in one of his

famous essays, war is the health of the state. i think that's indisputable whether the u.s. should go into war or not respectively. the espionage act was passed a year later which you know about, the repression against anti-war newspapers and speakers, like eugene deps, not because the u.s. was paranoid or congress paranoid because the danger of those who oppose the war continue to oppose the war even when the u.s. was into it. even though this was the most repressive act by the u.s. government against its opponents in u.s. history, it was in some ways a very raltional thing to o do. people could speak out against the war and also disrupting the

draft. again, we ask how you see all these pictures downstairs of young men lining up dutifully to register for the draft and going into the war and being gung-ho for the war, not time to talk about all of that. one thing people often miss is that the draft was not all that popular. in fact 3 million men elfwibl for the draft -- eligible for the draft never registered at all. 350,000 didn't report as required to their training ca camps. black americans were represented among those, they felt, why should i fight for this war when we're not getting freedom at home. also small farmers also did, often thought as they often said, this is a rich man's war and poor man's fight and felt no

reason to help that fight. there was a large group of people who tried to get out of the draft legally drawing conscientious objection and not able to and there was a movement which got started to defend them. the american civil liberties union was formed during world war i by radicals originally called the national civil liberties bureau. crystal eastman was one of the founders of it and baldwin. their only task was to defend people persecuted for starting the war and went on to do other things after that. i will leave room for questions. i think to say to end up what did it benefit the united states to enter the war? this is a good question, what did it benefit the u.s. to go

into the war. obviously there was no peace in that victory as wilson naively grandly demanded. the settlement made at versailles did not last. the u.s. senate did not ratify the treaty. didn't enter the world of nations. it's debatable. this is the most controversial thing i'll say, it's a terrible irony, i think the u.s. made a choice to enter world war i, there was no reason they had to enter that war, and it may have made the second world war more likely. john kugan said it was the genius of williston to recognize a lasting peace must be a peace without victory, it was tragedy of woodrow wilson his own neutrality would bring about the victory that made a healing peace impossible. we can discuss whether the peace

coalition was right to oppose the war but i think the stakes of it losing were very great. thank you. [ applause ] >> we have some time for pre-drink questions. >> did the police coalition oppose the league of nations after the war? >> that's a good question. they were split. brian did. brian actually supported the war once he declared war but did not -- until the day before the vote in the house, he was opp e opposing it. but ditkitchens supported it toy to get the best we can and most democrats voted anyway because

it was wilson's and became a very partisan issue, as you know. some democrats opposed it. by that time the republicans controlled the senate. they won control of the senate in the 1918 election, so that meant they were fighting the offensive and also they knew wilson was a sick man by the time the votes took place. even those who opposed it for partisan reasons couldn't really oppose it. they would have been conceded as stabbers in the back of the president i think if they had. brian, i think, was often seen as a not a very smart guy or something, just an empty -- he wrote interesting articles basically saying, mr. president, this is how you con compromise and still get to the league of nations and wilson was not hearing any of it. >> our next speaker -- >> thank you. how significant in terms of

getting the u.s. into the war was the zimmerman telegram, i icing on the cake and if it happened would the u.s. still have been in the war? >> the zimmerman telegram, was there a stupid or diplomatic move ever made? i don't know. as you know, we just heard before, the british read the cables, amazing. i guess, you know, if you spent your youth dueling and had a scar on your face when dueling as zimmerman had, you felt you could get away with anything. there's different opinions of this. barbara tuckman, my relative, wrote a back about that, that it was arguably essential. more recent stories, i forget the name of the one i cited in the book, i have to look at my footno footnotes, newspaper opinions didn't change very much. newspapers were in favor of it, those in favor of the war before the telegram were still in favor

of it and those opposed still opposed. it didn't seem to move public opinion all that much. probably because it seemed so outrageous or outlandish. how were the mexicans going to help the germans? it didn't make much sense much less get the japanese to somehow get to california. it made no sense. it just showed perhaps how desperate the germans were. >> you kind of touched on this by mentioning jpmorgan jr., the slogan was we went to war to keep keep the world safe for democracy, but sometimes it seems like we went to war to keep the american bankers and financiers safe if the british and france lost. >> i get that a lot.

obviously, jp momorgan want to good business. but i'm not an economicist, but i don't think economics are the main reason people opposed the war. that was not true for wilson. there's no evidence that wilson cared about that. colonel house talked about it. it was a question of whether you u.s. could leave the world berer by leading toward peace and staying to peace or making a difference in the war and wilson believed in the latter, i think. so you clearly u.s. was doing fine without getting to the war. it's british and french had lost the war, who knows. if the germans could construct a

bit larger empire the way they wanted to, who knows what would have happened. the u.s. economy was doing fine. in terms of the percentage of american gdp based on that money -- based on the loans, it was small. actually, ferguson book pity of war, goes into this. i disagree with ferguson on a lot of things like the love for henry kiss singer. as you read the book, it's a long book, it came out in the late 1990s, he said what's worst that would have been if the british and french had lost the war. we might have it prosperous

democratic state in europe, we have that, which they controlled. we have that. that's call germany. when you talk about -- when you write a book like this about a very -- influential and overlooked peace coalition which would have had majority of the americans on its side, and certainly seemed to be holding the national security league and the roosevelt and some who wanted u.s. to go to war was able to stop the military from being expanded until u.s. goes to war, you keep wondering if this had done this, or that. what would have hammppened. i don't dwell on that in my book. that's not a good thing to dwell

on. that's question worth requesting. >> thank you. >> your next question from dr. san. >> i wonder if you can comment on the longer anti-war movement in terms of the american philippine war and i know jane adam was involved with that as well. was that the same, or different, how did that evolve? >> that's a great question. if i had time, i would have gone into whole question of why even though american has been at war for most of the years of history, anti-war movement don't get much coverage by historians, you want hand the good books on anti-war movement in all of the american history, well some people change their views. he was something pass mist at

the time. he opposed that -- as possessed to take philippine, william james who wrote essay i begin book with moral equivalence of war, he died in 1910. led by elite fiction like him from legal community, academia, so forth. 1890s, so brian was -- even though he was in the army, had his own regular meant, one of

the issues was anti-imperialism. you cannot talk about anti-war movement in the same way because the philippines, most americans were aware of what was going on. it wasn't on the front page. there was not a large sustained moment against it all the way until the war against the insurrection philippines was on in 1802 or so. because different groups part of this group. feminist was not active in the movement against the philippines. >> last question. >> hi, i'm historian, awork across the river from you.

where lies the grave of brian. my question to you, maybe not with lof let, the other thee you talked about did you find any evidence of correspondence or brian and the other three. >> kichard was close. because he was popular racist. they go together at the time. some argue they still do, but i won't get into that. kitchen his speeches are printed against north -- there's evidence that east man and kitchen had meetings to stop the preparedness bill so forth and other measures to stop spanish military. they correspondence between

them, yes. socialist. i should say again, socialist were not, as you think, socialist must have been on the left flank. socialist met with wilson in the white house for example, together with non-socialist. there was a lot of leakage, a lot intersection with these people. the last time james adam goes to the white house to meet with wilson, she said that's not going to happen, he didn't say it like that, but up until then he continued to be ambivalent. the fact that the senator

majority leader was opposed to the war was a pass vis and had to work with everybody. think of that, you have house majority of the leader, the chair of the foreign relations committee voting against going to war. they get six votes in the war senate and 50 in the house. but people say if people voted own conscious more people would have voted against the war. thank you. [ applause ] friday cpac.

our coverage continues at 1:55 with schedule speeches, former republican candidate candidate. watch live coverage on c pan and c-span.org or listen live with the radioapp. this weekend on american history c-span 3, this saturday morning we're live from the library from richmond, virginia. history of their construction in the north and south how monuments have changed. at 8:00 on how rise of tobacco london mer chants in the 17th century. >> instead of accepting the price, i'm instead going to

sends the tobacco over to england on my own account and pay commission for someone to m market there for me. it ties maryland to these english mer chants most of them in london. sunday we continue with interviews with prominent african-american women. from 1957 to 1998. and received presidential medal of freedom and congressional gold medal. >> i grew up and even in high religion experience was a feeling of the importance of opens and how much each one of contributes to the other,

there's no superior and no inferior. the morning of may 19, legal and can experts, robert lincoln files affidavit to have mother tried on incompetent. she can be held due to "insanity." for complete coverage go to c-span.org. c-span where history unfold daily. in 1979 c-span was created by cable television companies and brought to you by cable or satellite providers. up next, reel america we pres